Benghazigate Mirror Image Of Fast & Furious

The Nexus Between Cover Ups: Benghazigate Mirror Image Of Fast & Furious…

Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

The same thugs-in-suits who ran guns through Mexico – killing a Border Agent and scores of kids in Mexico too – are guilty of covering up the BIGGEST gun running/weapons smuggling operation in US history.

And these goons would have Americans (and others too) believe that the kiddies in Newtown are their paramount concern; as they hide behind their cold, dead bodies to ram through gun control, contrary to the Second Amendment! Does it get any more twisted than that; those responsible for scores of deaths of youngsters in Mexico (‘Eric Holder Buries Another Fast And Furious Victim’- www.westernjournalism.com/eric-holder-buries-another-fast-and-furious-victim/) due to another deadly operation – Fast & Furious – also designed to grab American’s guns, are again spitting on the dead. They understand that an armed guard/administrator/teacher would have spared the carnage! And it was their decision to gut the funding, not once but twice, for school safety revamping.

Devils.

So, as Obama and his radical/racialist AG hustle to ‘legalize’ the gutting of the Second Amendment, one has to ask: what will it take to finally bring down this unlawful duo? adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/01/will-barack-hussein-obamas-lawless-justice-department-under-the-aegis-of-ag-holder-finally-fall-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/. And this blogger is not the only one attempting to hold their feet to the fire. Not at all.

‘Another Benghazi / Fast and Furious parallel? State Department employees not allowed to talk’

by Ben Barrack on DECEMBER 13, 2012 

The parallels between Operation Fast and Furious and the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi continue to mount. The latest example comes courtesy of Kerry Picket. She is reporting that Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who serves on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, says the State Department is not allowing him to talk to any of the survivors of the Benghazi attack.

Via Bretibart:

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- UT) told Breitbart News on Wednesday that he has been “thwarted” by the State Department from seeing any Americans who survived the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in  Benghazi. Many people forget that there were Americans who survived the Benghazi attack, some of whom were badly injured and are still recovering.

“My understanding is that we still have some people in the hospital. I’d like to visit with them and wish them nothing but the best but the State Department has seen it unfit for me to know who those people are—or even how many there are,” Rep. Chaffetz said. I don’t know who they are. I don’t know where they live. I don’t know what state they’re from. I don’t even know how many there are. It doesn’t seem right to me.

So, how is this reminiscent of how the Fast and Furious investigation was handled?

Understand how history repeats itself with today’s persecution of Christians in Islamic countries and compare to the plight of the Jews in Nazi Occupied Europe, click her for details.

Consider the names Kevin O’Reilly and William Newell. When the DOJ / ATF – led Operation Fast and Furious was at its peak, there were communications between Newell and O’Reilly, who at the time was Director of North American Affairs with the National Security Council (the White House). If one ATF employee could be placed at the center of Fast and Furious, Newell might be that guy.

Here is a very compelling exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Newell from July 26, 2011 in which Gowdy confronts the former SAC about an email between O’Reilly and Newell. Shortly after this exchange, O’Reilly was transferred to Iraq to work as a State Department employee:

Obviously, after O’Reilly’s name was brought into the Fast and Furious scandal, Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) wanted to talk to him. Here is an exchange between Issa and Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier a couple of months after the July 26th hearing:

More than one year later, O’Reilly returned from Iraq to work at the State Department.

Via CNS News:

Obama administration employee Kevin O’Reilly — who congressional investigators called “the link connecting the White House to the [Fast and Furious] scandal” — is back in the United States now after abruptly leaving his White House job to work in Iraq in 2011 after emails concerning him and Fast and Furious had surfaced.

O’Reilly left the United States in August 2011, shortly after his knowledge of the gun-walking program was publicized during a congressional hearing on July 26.

O’Reilly has so far refused to cooperate with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which recently threatened to subpoena him. He also refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General, which investigated the program and recently released its findings.

Both the House committee and the Inspector General’s office sought to interview O’Reilly about Fast and Furious but the White House refused to grant him permission to be interviewed.

Another curious bit of timing involved the release of the DOJ’s Inspector General report just weeks before O’Reilly’s return from Iraq, meaning that O’Reilly left for Iraq shortly after he became a person of interest for the Oversight Committee and returned shortly after the DOJ IG issued its final report. Despite this, the White House said that was all coincidence:

In August 2011 — after the e-mails were first discussed at a July 26 congressional hearing — O’Reilly was named as the senior director of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Programs in Iraq, a State Department position.

“Unsung Davids”, a new and powerful book tells the story of ten modern-day heroes who fought tyranny and evil but are given little or no recognition. Click Here for more details.

The State Department official told CNSNews.com that O’Reilly’s reassignment to Iraq from the White House “was a standard foreign service career rotation that had been planned for months in advance of his detail to the NSS.” The State Department could not confirm O’Reilly’s new title at the State Department.

So, what do Kevin O’Reilly and the survivors of the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi have in common? All are State Department employees (presumptively); all were somehow connected to operations that involved the murder of American officials; and all are being prevented from speaking to Congressional committees who want and deserve answers.

HTTP://SHOEBAT.COM/2012/12/13/ANOTHER-BENGHAZI-FAST-AND-FURIOUS-PARALLEL-STATE-DEPARTMENT-EMPLOYEES-NOT-ALLOWED-TO-TALK/

Adding insult to grievous injury and pointed towards the direction of the American people, along comes another Capitol Hill investigation to get to the truth, but nothing of the sort is afoot. Far from it.

‘The wretched absurdity of the Benghazi report’ – Douglas Hagmann

“Only if this report was written with the blood of the dead Americans could it be more insulting to their memory, their families and to the intelligence of the American public.19 December 2012: Under the cover of the Newtown school shooting, an “independent” five member investigative panel quietly released an unclassified, 39-page report Tuesday night, detailing their findings of the attack that led to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The report cites five main reasons for the loss of life, all primarily related to inadequate security for U.S. personnel.

However, the independent panel found that no “U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.” Stated another way, no one is to blame nor will be held accountable for the murders of Americans Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty, Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Chris Stevens., so just continue about your business.

The report was released in advance of closed door congressional testimony scheduled for today by two senior panel members, retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also scheduled to testify this week, but has declined to do so as a result of her recent fainting spell. Others are unavailable to testify or have not been asked, which is a common tactic when the outcome of an investigation is fixed from the beginning, and this, based on an extensive review of all available evidence, most certainly was.

2012 Game show panel: To Tell The Truth

It is an interesting bit of trivia, perhaps, that the popular television game show To Tell the Truthpremiered exactly 56 years to the day that the Benghazi report was released. The objective of the 2012 real world panel appears to be the antithesis of former game show, as ferreting out the truth did not appear to be the panel’s objective.

The panel report offers nothing more than obligatory eye candy in the form of a stinging rebuke of State Department management and leadership failures that led to the murder of four Americans. The panel deliberately convolutes the pertinent issues with unrelated historical accounts of security issues in Libya dating back to 1967, giving the reader a sense of thoroughness while leaving the main issues untouched by design.

Ironically, the report opens with a 1905 quote from George Santayanna: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Included perhaps to add legitimacy and a veneer of integrity to an investigative report unworthy of such a definition, it is an insult to those aware of the actual events leading up to the murderous attacks of 9/11.

To understand how the truth behind the murders and the events of the attack is being buried amid familiar terms and talking points suitable for both political parties and their spokespeople, it is vital to understand the origin and makeup of the “independent” panel. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton convened the Accountability Review Board (ARB) in the wake of the attacks, quietly appointing retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering to chair and direct the panel. His appointment unceremoniously appeared in the October 4, 2012 edition of the Federal Register.

As noted in a previous report by this author, Thomas Pickering is an obvious choice to direct an investigation that could have any negative implications to Iran or this administration’s associations with the Muslim Brotherhood. Pickering is an advisory board member of the pro-Iranian organization known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and co-chairman of the board of directors of the International Crisis Group (ICG), whose executive committee includes the infamous George Soros. Pickering is also vice-chairman of Hills & Co., global consultants founded in 1993 by CFR and Trilateral Commission member Carla Anderson Hills.

The significance of Pickering’s appointment cannot be overstated or underestimated considering that the trail of blood from four Americans leads directly to Ansar al Sharia, a terrorist group funded by Iran. Who better to redirect or cover up the operational conspiracy that exists between Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and that Muslim Brotherhood that exists at the core of the 9/11 attack? Pickering is the obvious choice.

From the untouched to the absurd

Left untouched by the Pickering panel are the intrinsically sinister machinations of Obama, Jarrett and Clinton, as they as are methodically taking us to the brink of a new war in Syria through their weapons running operations in Benghazi. The report intentionally offered only a very narrow view of the events in Benghazi, limiting their scope to the already exposed security deficiencies that were secondary to the redefined Benghazi “consulate.” Using this tactic effectively diverts attention away from the real issue and thus, the actual cause for the attack.

Beyond the narrow focus of the security issues and the subsequent inconsequential wrist slap, the investigative panel descends further into the abyss of absurdity and insult by incredibly asserting that everything possible had been done to rescue and save our Ambassador and Sean Smith, and further asserted that “the interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there was simply not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”

That finding alone should alarm every thinking American based on open source intelligence and what is known, as well as what has yet to be disclosed. Only if this report was written with the blood of the dead Americans could it be more insulting to families of the dead and to the intelligence of the American public.

Perhaps Pickering and his cadre of co-conspirators would like to disclose to the American people the strange odyssey of a certain C-130 aircraft that left Croatia to Libya to provide assistance to the Americans under siege at the onset of the attack. The portal-to-portal flight time is about four hours, yet it did not officially “appear” on site for 23 hours. Perhaps it’s time to address the fact that the lie is different at every level, and for Pickering to stop being a firewall between his bosses and the truth owed to every American, and particularly to the families of those who were murdered.

It’s time to ask whether the crew of that C-130 was ever identified and interviewed. It’s time to locate and ask the personnel on board that aircraft how long it was, after they changed from their military uniforms into their street clothes to enact a rescue, were they forced to wait while the embattled Americans endured the attack and met their deaths. Oh yes, there is information known and crying out to be made public despite the contempt for the truth and equally important, the contempt for the American people by Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and Valerie Jarrett.

Four Americans were murdered in Benghazi. Over forty thousand are dead in Syria. Soon, it will be four million dead as a result of the hidden agenda of our elected leaders, the complicity of a corrupt media, and the complacency of a brainwashed public. Today we cry over the deaths in Newtown, but tomorrow, our sobs will be for the masses.”

www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7285 …and the scapegoating begins- www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/benghazi-report_n_2330924.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing6%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D247744.

Their criminality and subterfuge is so out-sized in scope, the chief culprits understand that revelations, via private and public hearings, would lock them  up for life.

And this is why they will pull out all stops to keep the truth from seeping through, but it in no way obligates millions of patriotic Americans to go along with their subterfuge. And a million (or more) person march on Washington is not out of the question either. It’s at least as important as the ‘Million Man’ march cobbled together through Black hucksters not too long ago. You think?

 by   Adina Kutnicki

STATE DEPT SECURITY CHIEF RESIGNS AFTER BENGHAZI REPORT

WASHINGTON (AP) – An administration official says the chief of the State Department’s security service, one of his deputies and an official from the agency’s Middle East bureau have resigned after a damning report that found systematic management failures responsible for a lack of security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

The official said Eric Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, and Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security, stepped down under pressure after the release of the report. The third official worked for the Bureau of Near East Affairs, but wasn’t immediately identified, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss personnel matters publicly.

The report said poor leadership in both bureaus left the Benghazi mission underprotected.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.

by PAT DOLLARD 

http://patdollard.com/2012/12/state-dept-security-chief-resigns-after-benghazi-report/

Build Israel, not Palestine

FRESNO ZIONISM

December 21st, 2012

Naftali Bennett

If someone tells you that all of your property belongs to him, and he will get it and dispossess you no matter how long it takes, then would you suggest that he take half of it now in the name of peace?

I am always confused when what the US and European media constantly refer to as Israel’s ‘hardline, right-wing’ government says that it is committed to a ‘two-state solution’ with the PLO as partner — the PLO that has murdered more Jews than any organization since the Nazi party. What is so ‘hardline’ about this?

The government is called ‘hardline’ because it has announced that it will permit construction of apartments for Jews in places like E1 that are under complete Israeli control, according to the Oslo Agreements (even though the PLO showed its contempt for those agreements by unilaterally turning to the UN for recognition as a ‘state’), and in its capital.

But since the PLO wants all of those places to be part of its Jew-free state (the media, normally hypersensitive to the slightest breath of racism, never seem to notice this), then these announcements are considered ‘obstacles to peace’.

The biggest obstacle to peace, of course, is the Palestinian intention to establish an Arab state from the river to the sea.

In 1993 the Israeli Left managed to con the government into letting the PLO return, and since then, the rapidly diminishing Left (now pretty much confined to some academics and members of the Ha’aretz editorial board) has been joined by the Europeans and the US in an effort to force Israel to implement the first stage of the PLO conquest by giving up Judea and Samaria and half of its capital.

The US and Europeans are affected by economic pressure from Arab oil producers, the political muscle of Europe’s growing Muslim population, the entrenched Saudi influence in the US, and plain old Jew hatred. The Israeli Left, such as it is, is either paid off — leftist NGOs are financed by the Europeans and the US-based NIF — or suffer from terminal cases of the Oslo Syndrome.

I’ve explained over and over again that the “two-state” solution is not a solution to anything — rather it would be a security disaster — and that there is no reason to make any concessions to the Palestinians as long as their oft-stated goal remains ending the Jewish state.

Everyone who understands the situation knows this. Certainly the Netanyahu government knows it better than most. So why does it continue to pay lip service to the destructive idea that peace could be had through concessions to the PLO?

In a piece about Naftali Bennett of the Jewish Home party — who is considered more ‘hardline right-wing’ than Netanyahu –  David Horovitz notes,

[Bennett] charged that the policy of Netanyahu’s government on settlements and the Palestinians is “schizophrenic” — by which he apparently meant that the prime minister talks a lot about major expansion of building beyond the Green Line, while also insisting he wants to move forward with the Palestinians, positions that manage to annoy the international community, the Palestinians, the settlers and just about everybody else in between.

Is it right-wing extremism to expect consistency? I don’t think so.

It’s time to dump the obligatory genuflection to the need for a Palestinian state, and get on with building the Jewish one.

http://fresnozionism.org/2012/12/build-israel-not-palestine/

Video: Birthday wishes from Israel

December 22, 20212

Today is my birthday!  Now, I would not have mentioned this to anyone.  However, my good friend from Israel gathered up photos of my children and family and created a beautiful video for me - so thoughtful, creative, and delightful, that I wish to share with you.  This is a pure example of the love Israel holds for its friends in the United States.  My one wish is that one day, the world leaders will share this same love for the tiny nation Israel - then, there shall be true peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

Bee Sting/Lorraine

Published on Dec 22, 2012

Lorraine McDonald amazing woman and a very close friend for Israel. Lorraine McDonald devotes her long time for Israel And devotes her newspaper for Israel with lots of love.

I salute you on your birthday. Ron Eshed - Israel

Islamic Terrorism Is Over If You Want It

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Islamic Terrorism Is Over If You Want It

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 16 Comments

In time for Christmas, the National Intelligence Council is predicting that Islamic Terrorism will end by 2030. And that seems reasonable. What room will there be for headchopping barbarians in the enlightened world of tomorrow where food comes in pill form, flying cars take you around the country in a minute and everyone follows international law.

By 2034, the last murder will have taken place and by 2042, a scientific cure will be found for crime. By 2051, even bad thoughts will have been eliminated, and by 2062, work as we know it will be abolished and everyone will mediate all day on the serious questions of life. "Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? How can there be a National Intelligence Council so devoid of intelligence?"

In the real world, by 2030, there will be thousands of emirates, many no more than small terrorist groups, but some of which control sizable territories. Mali is a reminder that a dedicated Islamist militia backed by oil money can create its own Afghanistan anywhere it likes. And once it has its emirate, then like any good bunch of robber barons, the Islamist militia will take a cut of the drug trade, kidnap the sons of the wealthy for ransom and shake down the international community for foreign aid.

Western countries are already paying their Jizya as foreign aid, trading cash for the promise of stability. The United States and its allies have paid out fortunes to Afghan and Iraqi militias during the past two wars. And that doesn't even begin to take into account the sheer amount of money spent on development in the Muslim world. It is likely that the United States has spent more on Jizya, the traditional protection money payment of the Dhimmi to the Muslim, than every other nation had throughout all of history. And that's just the down payment on the big bill.

Back when the Marines first saw action against the Barbary pirates, most nations found it easier to pay the savages than fight the savages. There are countless such private deals that have been made already and there will be countless more made to allow Western countries, and their companies and NGOs to function in territory controlled by Islamist Emirates. And that territory will include international shipping lanes.

The world could end Islamic terrorism by 2030, or at least depress its stock by quite a bit, but that would require doing something about the supply of terror preachers, oil money and spare males, and we have no interest in doing that. Instead the new program is to invest in Political Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood while maintaining selective peacekeeping operations against some of the more odious Islamic Emirates.

By 2030 there will be a hundred miniature Afghanistans, especially across Africa, while international peacekeeping forces composed of a combination of local militaries and NATO troops try to push out the local bands of Salafi holy warriors, and their pirate camps, brothels and drug labs. There will be drones over the skies of a hundred deserts fighting Toyota pickup trucks with bands of hooded men firing machine guns. There will be wire transfers from a dozen Islamic finance institutions wending their way from the great oil economies of the Persian Gulf and American soldiers, most of whom will have more in common with the special forces operator than the infantryman, who have never seen a conventional war fought in their lifetime, heading in on another rescue mission in the territory of a Terror Emirate.

Imagine the conflicts of the Cold War if instead of a single snakehead in Moscow, there had been a million Communist millionaires across the world, and if the Viet Cong were coming out of Oakland. Imagine the Drug War if the drug lords weren't just savages, but savages fighting for a world government that would turn us into their serfs. Imagine World War II if the Nazis were a religion that anyone could convert to and immediately become a member of the master race with the right to rob, rape and kill anyone from the inferior breeds.

But you don't have to wait for 2030 to see that world. It's already here.

By 2030, Europe will have an even bigger gap between the rich and the poor. Terrorism will be fought with surveillance cameras, DNA banks, numberless informants, some of whom may be double agents, constant technological innovations, many of them imported from the otherwise verboten Jewish State, and federalized police forces that are hard to distinguish from a police state. The new police state will be able to access the entire contents of any computer or mobile device at a click. Even speech that is still permitted today will lead to prison sentences at worst or at best, mandatory reeducation at special centers organized to combat extremism.

The bombs will still keep going off, but they will be a nuisance. Europeans will learn to adapt to the occasional suicide bombing the way that Israelis have. A bomb will go off, the survivors will be carted away to be treated by nationalized medical staff from the same religion as the bombers, who will occasionally help the bombers finish the job, the broken glass will be swept away and the television channels and newspapers will praise the spirit of a people unwilling to give in to extremism and hatred, while prominently featuring the half-hearted condemnation of a local cleric.

The No-Go Zones will grow and slowly turn into emirates. The authorities will make deals with the local gangs, who will act as Islamist militias. There will be lashes and honor killings in the formal setting of Islamic law and no one will pay attention. Urban and suburban enclaves will eventually become indistinguishable from Gaza. By 2030 the first crude homemade rocket, made with plans offered on the internet, may rise into the Parisian sky aimed at the Eiffel Tower.

By 2030 there will be more Muslims in the United States than there are now in France. There will be at least one Congressman who was not only sworn in on the Koran but who announces that his program is to implement full Islamic law. There will be at least one Muslim cabinet member in every single administration, regardless of party. The Muslim liaison may even be promoted to full Czar in charge of Muslim relations.

Like Europe, the United States will operate a paranoid surveillance state that its critics decry, even while both the state and its critics support the Muslim immigration that makes such a surveillance state mandatory. And to remind everyone of that there will be occasional terrorist attacks, some thwarted, some not, including possibly one big one, when an Islamist terrorist group finally gets its hands on chemical or nuclear weapons from one of the Islamic states in Egypt, Pakistan, Syria or the country formerly known as Saudi Arabia.

The America of 2030 will operate on the contradictory paradigms of Muslim affirmative action and Muslim wars. It will spend nearly as much trying to buy off Muslims as it will spend on trying to kill their terrorists. Half its intellectual capital will be sunk into praising Islam while the other half will be spent trying to find more elegant ways to stop Muslim violence and kill Muslim terrorists. Homo Americanus circa 2030 will be a veteran of two dozen wars in the Muslim world and two-hundred Muslim affirmative action programs. By 2030 the best way to get a job in the lagging American economy will be to be a Muslim.

The Russia of 2030 will be a Eurasian Empire that will incorporate Islam on equal terms with the Russian Orthodox Church. Muslims will be encouraged to think of Eurasia as their Caliphate and it will enforce Islamic law, with its own religious police, which will answer to Moscow. The Eurasian Union will be a decaying lawless territory run by warlords who pay tribute to the head warlord in Moscow. Some of those warlords will be Christian and some Muslim. In the cities they will look like the mafia and in the rural territories they will be conventional feudal lords.

Some Eurasian Muslim warlords will provide training camps and money for Islamic terrorist groups on the condition that they don't attack them. Many of the Jihadists of 2030 will come out of these camps, going off to fight in Asia, Africa, the Middle East or Europe, and returning with trophies of war, slaves and tales of adventure that encourage other young men to follow in their footsteps.

Other countries, including possibly the United States, will set up similar terrorist training camps on their own territory for Islamist groups plotting to carve out their own Emirates in Russia. By 2030, there will be little Afghanistans everywhere, with Jihadis training in Arizona and North Dakota for attacks on Russia's Eurasian holdings, Jihadis training in Russia for attacks on America and Europe, and Jihadis training in China for an attack on everyone.

By 2030, most countries will have come to view Islamic terrorism as a strategic asset, the way that Saudi Arabia and most Muslim countries do. They will recognize that the only way to transform the strategic liability of Muslim terrorism into an asset is by funding it and aiming it at their enemies. This will not be an entirely new strategy, but it will be taking place on an entirely new scale, and there will be a dramatic expansion by Islamist militias, many of whom will gain valuable experience, training and weapons by serving as the barbarian armies of a decaying West that they will use to conquer the West, the way that the Goth ancestors of Westerners did.

The Western leaders of 2012, like their ancient Roman counterparts, have come to admire the virtues of the savage more than the virtues of their own civilization. By 2030 it will be clearer than ever whether the outcome of their bloody halfhearted campaigns to civilize the savages with doses of democracy and civic institutions will have led to civilized savages or the savaging of civilizations.

Is this world of 2030 inevitable? Not at all, but considering current trends and policies, it is a far more likely outcome than the end of Islamic terrorism.

In 1969, John Lennon and Yoko Ono put up billboards with the message, "War is Over! If you want it" to protest against the Vietnam War. That's the magical thinking policy that Washington DC runs on now and the National Intelligence Council, under the Director of National Intelligence, who deleted any mention of Al Qaeda from the Benghazi talking points, reflect that magical thinking.

Will Islamic Terrorism end by 2030? It can if we want it to. There are two sure ways to end a war; either by winning it or by losing it. The world's most famous cokehead and mental patient duo meant the latter when they offered their Viet Cong Christmas greeting, but winning wars is still an option. It just isn't the option that we've chosen. The hearts and minds way of war will take us to the 2030 that I have described. And that 2030 will take us to a 2060 and a 2090 where the war is over because we weren't willing to fight our enemies as ruthlessly as they were fighting to destroy us.

Islamic terrorism can be over by September 12, 2030 if we decide to fight it the way that most of us thought we would on September 12, 2001. We can give our children and grandchildren the gift of a world without Islamic Terrorism. Or we can give them the nightmare of another 18 years of Islamic terror.

SULTAN KNISH BLOG - by DANIEL GREENFIELD

Hillary in Hiding - by Daren Jonescu

Bee's Note:  What type of words or language can best describe "evil"?  When a young man shoots his mother, and then drives to an elementary school to murder 20 school age children under the age of 7 years, plus murders 6 teachers, the media and our President have no problem describing these actions as "evil" (and rightfully so, I might add).

Now, look back on September 11, 2012, and listen to the tortured cries of Ambassador Stevens.  Dragged through the Libyan streets by a crowd of Islamic terrorists - terrorists who ignored the screams of Stevens as they mutilated his body before killing him and three other Americans/Navy Seals.  Would you say these actions of the terrorists were "evil"?  Any one with a sane mind could come to no other conclusion.

I saw a photo of the Ambassador being tortured - an image that is sketched in my mind forever!

Three months have passed since that horrible, fateful night. And, for three months this administration (the same administration that has just been given another four years to continue lying to the American people) has covered up, played the blame game, denied responsibility for the actions leading up to the night our American diplomats and Navy Seals were murdered.  Is that a rationale, sane decision on the part of a government that has taken an oath to protect the citizens of the United States?  

The night before the final Presidential debate, Hillary made a statement: "I am responsible" for what happened in Benghazi.  She should have been fired/dismissed immediately!  Of course, whatever her part in what happened in Benghazi is not her responsibility alone - her orders come directly from the White House.

The Benghazi murders have been pushed aside (nothing to see here, move along, folks!); the liberal media does not inquire about this horrific act by terrorists, nor do they wish to bring justice for our dead diplomats and those who tried to protect him.  Worse, there are 30 survivors, most in hospitals, and those who wish to speak to them have not been allowed - hide the survivors, so as not to get to the truth is NOT the actions of a government that has nothing to hide.

The very guns given the Libyans to fight against Gaddafi, are the same weapons used to murder the Ambassador.  The murder took place at a CIA compound, not at the American Embassy in Tripoli.  What was the motive for sending Ambassador Stevens (on Sept. 11th, of all days) to Benghazi.  What was his meeting with the Turkish Ambassador about and was it necessary to meet on Sept. 11th?  The Turkish Ambassador was allowed to leave the compound, passing through the terrorists crowded in the streets outside the compound, BEFORE the Islamic terrorists stormed and murdered our citizens.  How come the Turkish Ambassador did not try to warn Stevens?!  So many questions, so few answers.  

Hillary claims "responsibility", but refuses to face a hearing to answer to the American people.  The cover up continues!  I would suggest that anyone reading, who wishes to know why Stevens was left to die in the hands of terrorists, call their Representatives in Washington and demand they force this Administration to come forward and explain how this happened.  

As for Hillary's "stomach flu", give me a break!  That usually lasts 2-3 days at the most, and a concussion about 24-48 hours.  Not hospitalized?  Who exactly is helping her hide from a hearing seeking the truth?!

I dread the thought of "4 more years" of cover-ups and lying. What is considered "evil" - the act of terrorists, and/or the act of covering up murder?

December 17, 2012

Hillary in Hiding

By Daren Jonescu

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/hillary_in_hiding.html#ixzz2FKI6inHN

For once, I am inclined to believe Hillary Clinton. The U.S. Secretary of State, suffering from a sick stomach, has reportedly fainted and bumped her head. As a result, her spokespeople have already announced that she will be unable to testify at the Benghazi hearings, although she was not due to appear until December 20, many days after the vaguely reported fainting spell.

Already, the internet is resounding with a chorus of "How convenient!" (See here and here, for example.) Many, upon hearing this news, are assuming that Clinton, who has been hedging for a month on whether to appear at the congressional hearings, has concocted yet another excuse to avoid facing the music on a scandal which, if pursued with integrity, would likely end her political career, to put it mildly.

I, on the contrary, would like to give Secretary Clinton the benefit of the doubt on this one. Though I have never participated in a cover-up involving the brutal murder and defilement of people under my direct employ, I can only imagine that if I had, and if I were being called on the carpet to answer questions about my role in events surrounding a seven-hour terrorist assault on my representatives in Libya, and the subsequent disinformation campaign being managed, in part, out of my office, I would be feeling sick to my stomach, too. I imagine I might even faint, as the day of reckoning approached.

The basic question here is whether Hillary Clinton has so completely dissolved her own moral core -- the way her boss and fellow Alinskyite clearly has done -- that she is incapable of feeling even the fear of self-revelation when she is called to account for her words and actions. In other words, is this week's illness and fainting spell just a convenient excuse for avoiding her responsibilities, or might it be the pounding of a tell-tale heart?

Never having sat on my hands for several hours while receiving live reports and images of my employees being attacked by Ansar al-Sharia, I cannot say for certain how I would feel in her situation.

Never having received communications from men in distress pleading for rescue or support, and done nothing to respond to their cries for help, I can only speculate as to how I would feel if a committee -- some of whose members are not my political allies -- wanted to ask me what happened.

Never having offered an initial statement immediately following the murder of my ambassador in which I explicitly blamed his death on "heavily armed militants" and never mentioned any "spontaneous protest" in Libya, only to follow it up with subsequent statements cagily blaming an anti-Muhammad video and fudging on the spontaneous protest story, I have no idea how I would feel if I feared that someone might ask me about the sudden 180-degree turn in my account.

Never having spent three months, in cahoots with my boss and other liars, carefully avoiding, deferring, and obscuring the simplest inquiry of all -- "At what time, exactly, did you first hear of the attack on your Libyan consulate, and by what sequence of reasoning did you all decide that a rescue attempt was uncalled for?" -- how can I know how I would feel if I were concerned that I might finally be asked that question in a Congressional hearing?

Never having spent forty years climbing the political ladder, only to feel that it was about to collapse from under me at the very moment when people were saying that I was "inevitable" for 2016, I cannot deny that I might feel sick to my stomach, standing so close to the peak and yet looking into the abyss as Hillary Clinton must be doing today.

Never having spent decades pushing my leftist agenda from behind the camera while desperately, humiliatingly covering tracks for "the talent," my sociopathic spouse -- and then, having finally burst out from behind that demeaning mask, finding myself reduced to running interference again for yet another sociopath -- I cannot deny that I, too, might be suffering from vertigo.

In sum, it seems entirely believable to me that Hillary Clinton is feeling sick these days. In her situation, who wouldn't feel sick?

My question, however, is why this illness and minor injury, from which she is purported to be recovering happily at home, should be considered an acceptable excuse for not having to testify about a scandal in which she was a major player -- a foreign policy disaster for which she has expressly declared herself the buck's final destination.

Adults get sick. Some of them are prone to feeling nauseous or faint when faced with stressful situations for which they know they are unprepared. But adults typically do not use their personal discomforts as justifications for ducking out on their most important responsibilities and commitments.

Some years ago, my wife was given the unpleasant task of invigilating the final exam of a university freshman who was suffering from a terrible stomach flu, but who, having already purchased a ticket home for the following day, insisted on writing her exam while sitting on the floor of the women's bathroom, resting her head against the cool tiles to calm herself between mad dashes to -- well, you get the point.

Here, on the other hand, is the Secretary of State of the most powerful nation on the planet, called to testify before both Houses of Congress regarding a foreign policy debacle which resulted in the deaths of an important State Department official and three other Americans; here is the highest-ranking member of the president's cabinet, the one who stood at his side when he made his September 12 Rose Garden address on Benghazi; here is the woman who, in a supposed act of statesmanship, claimed personal responsibility for the Benghazi security failure (though simultaneously casting off that responsibility by saying "I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha") -- here she is, being excused from the most important day of her tenure as Secretary of State, in effect by means of a note from President O-Mama saying "Hillary isn't feeling well today, and she won't be feeling well next week either."

While the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, was only too eager to accept this sick note from Mrs. Clinton, and happy to announce her replacement by two of her deputies, Kerry's counterpart on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, played the role of rational adult:

We have been combing classified and unclassified documents and have tough questions about State Department threat assessments and decision-making on Benghazi. This requires a public appearance by the Secretary of State herself.

Yes, it does "require" such an appearance -- if your interest is in exposing the truth about Benghazi, namely that "failure" is too kind a word for the administration's actions before the attack, and "conscienceless" too kind for their conduct during and after it.

Hillary Clinton has made her reputation on being a tough, resilient woman. If she were really so tough, she would insist on appearing before Ros-Lehtinen's committee, even if she had to testify from the bathroom floor.

The Benghazi scandal, as I have said before, makes Watergate -- during which Clinton suffered her own first scandal, incidentally -- look like cheating at tiddlywinks. Men died after a seven hour battle, and after their repeated pleas to Washington for help were rejected. In the wake of this horror, the Obama administration created a calculated cloud of conflicting half-stories in order to protect Obama's re-election bid. The centerpiece of their cloud of lies was a fabrication about a "spontaneous" or "natural" protest that never occurred -- and that they knew never occurred -- a lie which, by emphasizing and repeatedly blaming a "disgusting" video about Muhammad, actually stoked real and deadly protests throughout the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton is the highest-ranking member of the administration scheduled to testify, and her prospective testimony would be most pertinent -- not because of what she would say, but because of what others would then need to say, or unsay, to remain consistent with her story.

But she isn't feeling well, and wants to stay home this week, so you should just forget the whole thing; goodness knows she'd like to forget it. (By the way, is this not the kind of fragility in the face of duty that ought to disqualify her as a presidential candidate?)

And if you are wise you will follow John Kerry's advice and dismiss any ideas about offering her a rain check. After all, rescheduling her appearance for a future date is only likely to remind her of that urgent meeting she has to attend in Bora Bora, or the hair appointment she promised herself for Christmas, or poker night with the gals at Huma's.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/hillary_in_hiding.html#ixzz2FKHxaIoZ

Iran has outplayed its adversaries up to the game’s finishing line.

US-Iranian nuclear talks fail. Iran has plutonium for 24 Nagasaki-type bombs

DEBKAfile Special Report December 15, 2012, 12:03 PM (GMT+02:00)

Fatman: Implosion-type nuke

The secret, one-on-one nuclear negotiations President Barack Obama launched with Iran have run into a blank wall. A senior Iranian team member, Mostafa Dolatyar, said Friday, Dec. 14 in New Delhi that the diplomatic process for solving the nuclear issue with Iran was in effect going nowhere, because the demand that Tehran halt its 20-percent enrichment of uranium “doesn’t make sense.”

He went on to say: “They [the world powers] have made certain connections with purely technical issues and something purely political. In so far as this is the mentality and this is the approach from 5 + 1 (the Six World Powers) - or whatever else you call it - definitely there is no end for this game.”

DEBKAfile: The phrase “or whatever else you call it” may be taken as Iran’s first veiled reference to the direct talks with Washington that were launched Dec. 1 in the Swiss town of Lausanne.

Mostafa Dolatyar is not just a faceless official. He is head of the Iranian foreign ministry’s think tank, the Institute for Political and International Studies, as well as a senior member of the Iranian team facing US negotiators in Lausanne. His remarks were undoubtedly authorized by the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who, through him, posted a message to Washington: If the enrichment suspension demand stands, the game’s over.

After more than 15 years of on-and-off, largely aimless, nuclear diplomacy with world powers and evasive tactics with the UN nuclear agency, Tehran is for the first time showing signs of impatience and not just is usual disdain. This is because two things have changed:

1. For all those years, Tehran availed itself of every diplomatic opening for protracted bargaining about its nuclear program for the sake of buying time, free of pressure, to push that program forward. Now, the Iranians are telling the US and Europe that they have arrived at their destination. For them, time is no longer of essence, as it may be for the West.

2.  The second development was revealed on Dec. 5 by The Wall Street Journal in a short leader captioned “From Bushehr to the Bomb.” This revelation was not picked up by any other Western - or even Israeli - publication despite its sensational nature.

Drawing on US intelligence sources, the paper suggested that the withdrawal of 136 fuel rods from Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr in mid-October – on the pretext of wandering metal bolts – and the rods’ return in the last week of November “could have been a test run for the Iranians should they decide to reprocess those rods into weapons-grade plutonium.”

American, Russian and Israeli nuclear experts have always maintained that the technology for extracting plutonium from fuel rods was too expensive and complicated to be practical - and certainly beyond Iran’s capacity.

The Wall Street Journal begs to differ:  “…experts tell us that the rapid extraction of weapons-usable plutonium from spent fuel rods is a straightforward process that can be preformed in a fairly small (and easily secreted) space.”

This means that Tehran can easily manufacture plutonium bombs without building a large plutonium reactor like the one under construction at Arak.

The paper goes on to reveal that, by this method, Iran could extract 220 pounds (just under 100 kilos) of plutonium, enough to produce as many as “24 Nagasaki-type bombs” – a reference to the World War II bombing of the Japanese city on Aug. 9, 1945.

One of those bombs – nicknamed “Fat Man” (after Winston Churchill) – is equal to 20 kilotons.

DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources note that if this disclosure represents the true state of Iran’s nuclear program, the game really is over. The diplomacy-cum-sanctions policy pursued by the West to force Iran to abandon enrichment and shut down its underground facility in Fordo has become irrelevant.  So, too, have the red lines Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu drew so graphically before the UN Assembly on September 27.  

What Mostafa Dolatyar was saying in effect is that Iran has outplayed its adversaries up to the game’s finishing line.